GeorgiaDon

Still waiting for examples of homeowners prosecuted for defending themselves in their home. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Leaving aside the issue that you aren't even thinking in complete sentences, climate models have never been designed to predict exactly when or where the next flood or hurricane will occur. They are intended to predict the probability or frequency with which such events will occur, which is not at all the same thing. Once again, you create a straw man argument just so you can shoot it down. It might make you feel feel good, but ultimately it's totally unproductive. Mental masturbation, if you will. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't see anything at the site you linked about "record levels". Can you clarify that? I hope this record isn't in the same vein as your "peer reviewed study" that was an unreviewed opinion piece. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I like these two quotes: "But beginning with that bill there have been 20 to 50 members who will make adjustments to the bill that guarantee you're not going to get one Democrat to vote for it, and then they still vote against the bill themselves and deny Boehner the 218 votes he needs to bargain with. " " Q: How about you? You recently resigned from Congress after nine terms. LaTourette: I'll go back and find something productive to do with my life. As opposed to the last 18 years. " Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Can you provide some examples of recent cases where people have been successfully sued or prosecuted for defending themselves in their house against a burglar? I'll be surprised if you can find any. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't know, how many have there been? Can you link to any recent incidents? Preferably ones where the burglar actually wins the lawsuit; filing lawsuits is meaningless, as anybody can try to sue for virtually anything, and in no way implies that the party being sued must be guilty of anything. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Oops, my bad. Always happy to find agreement here. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I don't believe I said anything about passing more useless laws. I did say that the fact that unenforceable useless laws are on the books shouldn't be used as a reason to censor discussion of things that might work. Discussion does not equal passing laws; it might be that nothing can be done, within the constraints of the 2nd amendment, or it might be that relaxing existing laws might be useful. For example if it can be shown that sanctions applied after a diagnosis of mental illness are deterring people from seeking treatment, maybe those sanctions can be reduced or modified so people will seek treatment. It's not like you to put words in people's mouths. I think it would be a good idea if laws had sunset provisions. so congress could keep occupied debating the expiring ones and renewing the good ones/letting the useless ones go, instead of coming up with so many new ones. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Or maybe not so unintended. Well sure. Also I agree with remhwa's post. Another take on it, though, is that it's somewhat disingenuous to say "enforce the laws we already have" when everybody knows full well those laws are unenforceable in any way that will actually do anything to prevent the bad guys from obtaining and using guns. Just saying "we have enough laws" is a deflection, as those laws are so easily circumvented that they are pretty much useless. The solution is not to pass more useless laws of course, but we shouldn't use the fact that many useless laws are on the books to shut down discussion of things that might work, pretending that everything would be hunky-dory if existing laws were enforced. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with what you say, and certainly agree that the 10 vs 30 round argument is a red herring unlikely to achieve anything useful. My quibbling was only with the idea that guns are the same as hammers, and that even discussing the role access to high capacity firearms might play in mass shootings is nothing but emotional and irrational fear-mongering. You make a good point about SAMs, but of course that was the reason behind me choosing SAMs as an example. If one simply wanted to poke holes in paper targets and milk cartons, one could do that with a slingshot, just as one could shoot stuff into the sky with a model rocket. Although one can kill someone with a hammer if one is really determined to, there is a reason soldiers are armed with guns and not hammers. Anyone who really believes that there is no difference between guns and hammers should be perfectly comfortable sending troops into combat armed with hammers. I doubt even Marc would care to propose that the military should do that. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And I'd like to have a SAM so I can fire it at kites. But I can't, because of fear mongering emotional pussies. Note I am not arguing in favor of gun bans here. I have no wish to deprive you of your enjoyment of perforating paper targets or milk containers. I personally also enjoy studying the effect of high velocity collisions between lead projectiles and watermelons; that can be quite spectacular. Plus, the targets get smaller and so more challenging to hit as you progress. One of the pleasures of having 18 acres to play on. I only take issue with the argument that people are being irrational or illogical pussies to fear the damage that can be done by a firearm in the wrong hands. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history. Seems a fairly obvious problem to me. He broke the law in doing that. The obvious problem is our inability to enforce the current laws we have. But I'm thinking that's not what you meant. What you meant was we need more laws even though we can't enforce the existing ones we have. Fair enough. How about we set up checkpoints at all state borders, and search all vehicles just in case someone purchased a gun illegally while out of state. I'm sure you legitimate gun owners won't mind that, even if it means having to wait a couple of hours at the border. For that matter, why not stop and check people at random as they are driving or even walking around, to make sure they are properly permitted if they are carrying? If these steps seem a bit draconian to you (not to mention unconstitutional), can you explain how exactly these "existing laws" could possibly be enforced? It seems to me that such laws are effectively unenforceable, at least in any sense that would actually serve to reduce illegal gun ownership or use. I know that there are lots of laws about gun purchasing and such, but it seems to me all they are good for is to pile a few additional charges (mostly misdemeanors) on after a perp has already been charged with armed robbery or murder, and if they aren't plea-bargained away they add nothing to the sentence. Again, for anyone who has a constructive suggestion, how can "existing laws" be enforced in a way that would actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and also be acceptable to legitimate gun owners? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It's only unlikely because it's just about impossible for a civilian to get a scud. If they were as widely available as guns, I'm sure the situation would be different. The only thing assinine about the question is that it reveals how assinine the arguments you and rushmc have been posting are. If guns are just designed to propel pieces of lead at high velocity, and have nothing (by design) to do with killing anyone/anything, then it's also fair (indeed, an exact comparison) to say that SAMs are only designed to launch things into the air. Maybe people could use them to shoot at birds, or clouds, or some such innocuous targets. If fearing the capacity of high capacity guns to cause injury or death to large numbers of people is illogical, then why isn't fearing the ability of SAMs to bring down planes loaded with people also illogical? Is there a single logical argument that you guys have used to argue that guns have nothing to do with murder rates, that does not also argue that there is no rational reason to ban SAMs? Especially considering that no-one has ever been murdered with a SAM. The fact is, your own pro-gun arguments are based on your emotions as much as the anti-gun arguments are. You (and many others) obviously like your guns, think they are fun/cool/useful, and don't want anything to impede that. Fine. But making up BS stories about guns just being designed to throw lead downrange is assinine. If that is true, then SAMs are just expensive firecrackers. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with your comment. I also think home budget analogies are also sometimes crappy because they are being applied to a situation that never occurs in a real home budget, like this one about the cost of AF1. How many people Have to travel with the level of security, and the staff, that the President does? How many people have to assume they will be targets for terrorists or disgruntled citizens every time they travel? Have the guarantee of perfect communications at all times, even in the event that someone should launch a nuclear attack while they are in the air? Plus having to keep up a level of maintenance on an old vehicle that precludes (as much as is humanly possible) the chance of a crash due to a mechanical failure? I was also shocked to learn how much it costs to operate AF1, but it seems that cost is not materially different than it has been under previous presidents. Certainly no-one has provided evidence that Obama has demanded anything that inflated the cost. AF1 is the responsibility of the military, and they are the ones who set the budget for it. It's justifiable to ask why is the cost so high, and is there anything about it that is superfluous? But, do we as a country really want to risk some major crisis because the president was out of communication at a critical moment? Have any wacko be able to take out the President's plane due to crappy security? End up with Biden (or Pelosi!!) as president because it was too expensive to properly maintain the engines? This isn't directed at rehmwa, but to anyone who thinks the President should have to pay out of pocket for the cost of travel. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

oK Marc, since Regulator seems to be distracted by his fixation on Hilary Clinton I'll ask you. SUrface to air missiles are, according to the logic in this thread, simply designed to propel a projectile into the air. I guess if the were intended to bring down planes they would be called "surface to plane missiles", right? Also, I am not aware of a SAM missile being used to commit a single murder in the USA. So is the ban on owning or selling SAMs only based on emotion? ShouLd American citizens be allowed to freely own SAMs? If not, why not? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In that case, surface to air missiles are just designed to launch a projectile into the air. So, why then are American citizens prohibited from owning surface-to-air missiles? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I won't be the first to comment, but I can see an upside and a downside with mass proliferation of nudity. I'd certainly let it determine where I'd choose to hang out. One thing for sure It would sure change the concealed weapons debate Is that a gun in your pocket, or are you just happy to... Oh never mind. You don't have a pocket. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Feinstein has a dreaded rifle? Is that sort of like a killer rabbit? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Oops sorry, I didn't realize you were being serious. Do you have any idea how much it would cost to retrofit every school in America with blast doors that come up out of the floor between every classroom? Recall that Lanza overcame the barrier that was supposed to keep him out just by shooting it, so to be effective any barricade would have to able to withstand the most powerful armor-piercing ammo potentially available to a shooter. Anything less would be an abject failure to protect our kids, not to mention a magnet for $100 million lawsuits. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Parabolic skis have edges that are very slightly curved, so they are slightly wider near the front and back than they are in the middle where your boot attaches. When you put pressure on the edges (lean right or left), the edge grabs the snow and the ski turns easily, as it is following the edge of a circle. Standard skis have parallel sides, you also turn by shifting your weight to one edge or the other, but it takes more effort to make them turn. I also noticed that the parabolic skis were much less likely to get caught in the track left in the snow by a previous skier, though I don't know why. I haven't skied since that trip, which now that I think about it was several (like 7 or 8) years ago, so I don't know if such skis are the norm now, or if they are regarded as "training wheels". I just know that within an hour or so of practice I was able to handle anything up to (not including) the black diamond runs, despite not having been on skis for 15 years or more. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm visualizing a setup like the hallway at the start of each episode of Get Smart. Wouldn't it be cooler to arm the principal with a Star Trek phaser? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'm sure we all (me included) do it from time to time. I used to ski some, though never the black diamond slopes, except once by accident. A few years ago I was in Taos for a conference, and tacked a day onto the trip to spend at the ski resort there. I tried parabolic skis for the first time, and was amazed at how much easier they made the whole thing. Hope you have a great year. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

One consideration there is that then even more of the real power will be in the hands of the aids and other bureaucrats, who will have a never-ending succession of know-nothing newbies to lead around by the nose. Sort of like that BBC TV show "Yes Minister". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Good for her and you, seriously. I also got through my PhD without loans, and started a family in the process, by virtue of my wife 1) working, and 2) enforcing a very strict budget. But, that was 23 years ago, costs of everything have escalated dramatically since then. The cost of a masters depends very much on the field, which of course I don't know in your wife's case. Some fields require an additional two years of coursework beyond the undergrad, which is survivable. In the hard sciences you have that plus a significant research project, enough to produce a publishable paper in your research discipline. I rarely see a Master's completed in less than 3 years, sometimes more. If you add a PhD on top of that, you have more course work plus enough experimental research for 2-4 papers, so we are typically talking about 5 years on top of the Masters, sometimes as much as 7, working full time on your research. Now of course we can say that people take this on voluntarily so it should be entirely on them. Two things to consider, though. Loans have to be repaid; without access to loans you would have to have the money for all those years of tuition and living expenses in your pocket before you could even start, as (in the sciences) you'll only be able to earn enough as a TA or at a part-time job to cover part of the costs, and the more time you spend working outside the lab the more years you'll have to put in to get finished. So it is on the student, just spread out and largely deferred until they are finished and working. So without access to loans, very few Americans would undertake such education, yet these are the scientists who are essential to maintain American leadership in biotech and other technology-intensive industries. Secondly, many other countries are investing heavily in the education of their people. Whatever you may think of American exceptionalism, if India and China are producing 10 times the PhDs that we are in high-tech fields, where do you think those industries will be based 20 years from now? Here's a different way to think of the issue. It costs the US military about 6 million dollars to train a pilot, or 9-12 million for a fighter pilot. For 9 million dollars I can train about 30 PhD biochemists and immunologists, most of whom will end up working in biotech or even starting their own biotech companies. Which is a better investment in the economic productivity of the country, 1 fighter pilot or 30 biochemists and immunologists? Which investment is more likely to grow the economy and add wealth, including tax revenues, to the country? For that matter, there are educational institutions that train pilots, Embry-Riddle for one. Why not have a system where people pay the cost themselves to get training as a fighter pilot, then the military can hire the best graduates. I bet the cost will come down from 9-12 million, maybe it'll only cost a couple of million. Don't most people have that put aside by the time they are finished high school, anyway? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[replyYou're arguing about overspending with people (like me) who think everything is overly spent. Including on ducation, infrastructure, education, social services, education, education. ]People like me are against government spending in general. People like me think that federal education spending should be slashed. Social services slashed. Military slashed. Medicare slashed. Social security slashed. Okay. Increase infrastructure - that's part of the whole interstate commerce thing. So you're OK with investing in roads and bridges, but against investing one dime in people? Since you mention education five times (well, four times plus "ducation") I assume that's an especially sore point for you. Roads and bridges don't innovate or create new products and industries. Sure, they are necessary to move things around, which is essential for interstate commerce and all that. But, much of the rest of the world invests in their population, in order to ensure the largest possible pool of trained people to staff existing corporations and create new ones. Do you think it is in the long term interest of the country to restrict the pool of trained scientists, engineers, whatever to those who can afford tuition/living expenses out of pocket? Believe me, the US is already losing this game. I have three people in my lab, and all three are foreign nationals being paid by their home governments. Every lab I can think of has more foreign students than US students, and this is directly a result of the long term debt burden US students face if they want to complete a Master's and PhD degree. My Chinese postdoc will return home debt free and to a good job, but my American students will spend 20 years paying off their student loans. Where do you think the US will be in 20 years when it comes to biotech and other high-tech industries? Why is it OK to invest in infrastructure but not in people? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)